Talk:Eternal security (salvation)

Hi, might this be better placed under the name "Eternal security," with a redirect from here to there? --David B(TALK) 09:23, 17 October 2017 (EDT)

Also, I see your point about the category. I still don't really like it there, but I looked up the definition of heresy, and found my understanding of the word was slightly off. If you think it belongs there, then I suppose that's fine. --David B(TALK) 09:54, 17 October 2017 (EDT)

If we don't have an article on eternal security, this article should definitely be moved. Also, Dataclarifier is a Roman Catholic, and he does have a strong Roman Catholic bias -- I strongly oppose labeling eternal security a heresy. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2017 (EDT)

I don't like it either, but Merriam Webster allows for the term being used to mean "dissent or deviation from a dominant theory, opinion, or practice; To disagree with the party leadership" in the secondary definition. Using this definition to defend it is a little bit of a stretch (it is a secondary meaning), but still an arguable point. I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who disagrees with this category, though. I would not at all be opposed to the category being removed. I will review this issue and the new content when I have time. --David B(TALK) 10:55, 17 October 2017 (EDT)

If there is legitimate debate over a doctrine, it should not have the "heresy" label at the bottom because the category (in the eyes of the reader) makes the article appear to take the position that the doctrine is false and thus is heresy on the level of Gnosticism and Arianism. At least, if we include this category here, we should add this category to the opposing theological doctrine (that Christians can lose their salvation), since Christians who believe eternal security probably view the opposing doctrine as a heresy. --1990'sguy (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2017 (EDT)

The reason for my "legitimate debate" point is because while Conservapedia is very friendly towards conservative and Christians, it is primarily a politically and culturally conservative encyclopedia. It is probably not appropriate to it to take many theological positions (or to appear to take positions) on issues where religious conservatives disagree, since political conservatives have many different religious views. If my point here is wrong, please show me and I would appreciate it. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2017 (EDT)

Gentlemen! I appreciate your concern, but I do think you are very sensitive to a controverted issue. I was raised Disciples of Christ, then Conservative Baptist, and was active in Youth for Christ, and was one of my church's youth conversion counsellors and associate youth head of the Junior Department for 4 years 62-66. I appreciate your concern and your point. Please notice the wording I used: "There are those who reject this doctrine as a heresy." This is an historically documented fact. The text in no way says unequivocally "This doctrine is a heresy." Some of our readers will believe that. Some of our readers will strongly disagree. The article has both points of view. I am 70 years old and am fully aware of the several arguments pro and con. I know what texts of the Bible have been used for and against this doctrine. I myself have been on both sides, first one then the other. Please notice that I have provided examples of scripture supporting both sides. I included Martin Luther himself. I have also provided abundant External link sources from writers debating the issue, with direct links to their arguments. My main motive as a contributor is to fully inform the reader with Conservative Christian honesty about all sides of the issue. With that, I now have no objection to the removal of the category, if you decide to do so. It still remains that the doctrine of unconditional eternal security has been called a heresy in Christian history. May God grant each of you peace. Jonathan Edwards said, "God has yet more truth to bring forth from his word." (Pax vobis)

Thank you for your response, Dataclarifier. My problem is not with the article's body -- I think it is well done and even-handed. My problem is only with the category at the bottom of the article, which gives the reader an impression far different than that of the article body. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2017 (EDT)

I see you took me up on my consent for its removal. Appreciate your evaluation of the body of the article. Peace be with you. I wish you well. --Dataclarifier (talk) 11:31, 17 October 2017 (EDT)

After due consideration per reasonable recommendation by David, top above, I moved the page together with this talk page to an officially more accurate name. A redirect has been provided. Stay safe. Blessed be the holy name of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. --Dataclarifier (talk) 12:04, 17 October 2017 (EDT)

Looks good, thanks. Just because some people use a label doesn't mean we should use it too. I didn't want to make a major argument about it, but if this was the reasoning, then I do think it is definitely better without the tag. --David B(TALK) 12:16, 17 October 2017 (EDT)

I have added Bible references with links to the texts, and footnotes on Martin Luther's Letter to Melancthon. Especially prompted by comments above, for complete balance, have added statement at end of article that rejection of the doctrine of unconditional eternal security is seen as part of the Great Apostasy. --Dataclarifier (talk) 11:44, 18 October 2017 (EDT)

Addendum: I created the new article Antinomianism which includes the following links citing the historical fact that unconditional eternal security has been condemned as an antinomian heresy:

Peace be with you all. I wish you well. --Dataclarifier (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2017 (EDT)

DavidB has provided a brilliant "Support" section in favor of the doctrine. I was delighted to see the addition. Well done, David! You have really improved the article. Much appreciated. Sincere thanks for your help. --Dataclarifier (talk) 11:29, 19 October 2017 (EDT)

Actually, I just wrote most of the material and DavidB gave it a subtitle. Until recently, I was somewhat familiar with the Calvinism vs. Arminianism until a weak or so ago, but I did not have any depth of knowledge. But then I studied the topic deeper. As a result, I was able to contribute to the article. I still want to study the topic more as it is an interesting topic. Conservative (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2017 (EDT)

That's correct--credit where it's due, I only added the verses at the bottom. It is well written, I just didn't do it. Thanks anyway, though! --David B(TALK) 14:51, 19 October 2017 (EDT)

Absolutely! Credit where it's due. I really anticipate the additional contributions and solid research that I know Conservative can reliably contribute, and has the professional ability and qualifications to provide, to make this article first rate. Well done, Conservative! Thanks. --Dataclarifier (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2017 (EDT)

For personal health reasons, this article and Antinomianism will be my last major contributions to Conservapedia. I was privileged to be able to contribute. Peace be with you all, y'all. Semper Fidelis Jesus is Lord. --Dataclarifier (talk) 17:47, 19 October 2017 (EDT)

deleted phrase restored " even if one later renounces Christianity and/or engages in a grossly immoral lifestyle."

Contributor 1990sguy (see View history) deleted this phrase with edit summary explanation that the majority of those who hold this view (of Eternal Security) do not believe that salvation cannot be lost "even if one later renounces Christianity and/or engages in a grossly immoral lifestyle." After careful consideration, and noticing that the phrase still remained within the body of the "Supporting arguments" section, I restored the deleted phrase to the intro where it had been, and in addition provided a ref note with eternal links authored by Christians who actually teach that "even if one later renounces Christianity and/or engages in a grossly immoral lifestyle" such a depraved-lifestyle Christian, even an apostate who renounces Jesus Christ, cannot lose heaven come judgment day. For the record, I do not believe that. The warnings to Christians, genuine Christians, throughout the New Testament, to not fall away or practice sin (Antinomianism) lest they lose their eternal security are far too prominent and numerous for me to believe in this doctrine of unconditional security of salvation no matter how depraved and treacherous toward Christ a Christian may freely decide to become. If they can lose their security (1 Peter 3:17) then they were true Christians who actually had it—and you cannot lose what you never had. If you were never a real Christian, you never had security. I mean the real thing, not the belief or impression or self-deception of an insincere "performer who never really committed themselves to Christ" and "were never Christians in the first place". Peter testifies in this verse (3:17) that they actually have the security, and warns them not to lose it by being carried away with the error of lawless (antinomian) men who are ignorant and unstable and twist the scriptures to their own destruction. This involves free will, which some Christians deny (see Calvinism).--Dataclarifier (talk) 12:19, 23 May 2018 (EDT)